No 19233’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently December 1985 · most notably 325 F. Supp. 797 - Cortright v. Resor (1971), Kelley v. Metropolitan County Board of Education, Tenn. (1973)
3 district · 1 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Benton v. Maryland · Mempa v. Rhay · United States Accardi v. Shaughnessy · Harris v. Nelson · Ex parte Hull
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Any member of the armed forces who believes himself wronged by his commanding officer, and who, upon due application to that commanding officer, is refused redress, may complain to any superior commissioned officer, who shall forward the complaint to the officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction over the officer against whom it is made. The officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction shall examine into the complaint and take proper measures for redressing the wrong complained of; and he shall, as soon as possible, send to the Secretary concerning a true statement of that complaint, with the proceedings had thereon.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Our reluctance to review discretionary military orders does not imply that any action by the Marines, even one violative of its own regulations, is unreviewable judicially. See 4 Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, §§ 28.01, 28.16. Where Congress or administrative agencies themselves lay down procedures and regulations, these cannot be ignored in deference to administrative discretion.” 419 F.2d at 191 . See also Antonuk v. United States, supra, 445 F.2d at 595 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Dellaverson v. Laird““Although it is not this Court’s function to ‘direct the exercise of judgment or discretion in a particular way,’ Wilbur v. United States ex rel. Kadrie, 281 U.S. 206, 218 , 50 S.Ct. 320, 324 [ 74 S.Ct. 809 ] (1930), it is not inappropriate that this Court require the proper authorities to temper the exercise of their discretion with the laws of the United States and their own regulations.” 419 F.2d at 192 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.